Preliminaries

In heroic days, now several centuries past, when two opposing armies debouched upon a field of battle, each advanced a herald to warn the other of its aims, the intentness of its purpose, the justice of its cause, the dire results to be expected if the other did not summarily yield and to hold forth the promise that all would be well if its demands were immediately complied with.

This procedure is still observed between coal operators and coal miners when they are about to join battle over a wage scale. It was observed, last week, at Atlantic City. There the miners came, headed by John L. Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers, to present their demands, drawn up a week before at Scranton, Pa. (TIME, July 13), for a new wage contract to replace that which expires on Aug. 31. The miners ask 1) a two-year contract; 2) increases of 10% for contract miners and $1 a day for day workers; 3) the check-off (collection of Union dues out of miners' pay by the coal companies).

John L. Lewis himself first came forward as herald for the miners to proclaim their cause.

He said he wished that he could parade along the boardwalk the 1,000 miners killed during the last two years, the 40,000 miners injured and their widows and orphans. He went on:

"Every bit of anthracite produced is smeared with blood. That is a gruesome thought, but harsh words may be necessary to awaken public opinion and a more or less sonmolent industry to a proper degree of responsibility in the premises. . . . "It may be that the operators may again suggest to the mine workers the arbitration of points of differences. The mine workers position on that question, if and when presented, will be just the same today as yesterday, the same in 1925 as in 1923. Why? Because, when a man who toils in your collieries agrees to let some third party say what shall be his conditions of employment, he gives to that agency and commission the power to determine the character of his home, the food he shall eat, the degree of education he will give his children and to determine his standard as a citizen. Such a commission may determine what price a man may die for, what he will get for a broken back or a fractured limb. I don't know, any man who works with his hands who will arbitrate such a question."

Next spoke the herald of the operators, Samuel D. Warriner, veteran in Labor negotiations, making known the stand of the operators, surmised but not stated before.

He said that, if anthracite prices were increased, consumers would turn to other fuels; that they are already doing so, using soft coal, oil, gas, coke, electricity. He referred to the soft-coal industry as an example:

"When the present wages in that industry were agreed to, some 66% of all bituminous coal was produced by Union miners and 33% by the non-Union fields. Today I am informed about 70% of all bituminous coal is produced in the non-Union fields and only about 30% in the Unionized fields; that large Union operations are entirely shut down and that more than 200,000 Union miners are out of regular employment. There is no escaping from the meaning of these facts. The Unionized mines cannot survive under the scale of wages attempted to be imposed upon them and the non-Union operators are taking the business.

"The real issue," he said, "is the extent to which labor rates and costs can be reduced. We must have a substantial reduction in labor costs. If this can only be had by a reduction in existing wage scales, we believe we should have such a reduction. . . .

"Anthracite miners are enjoying higher annual earnings than any other workers of which we have found a record. They are higher than those paid rail-road workers, machinists, electrical workers, printers, bituminous and metal miners.

"The average annual earnings of all anthracite employes is upward of $2,000. The contract miners average over $2,500, or $1,200 more than the average for all industries."

He also rejected the demand for the checkoff.

The heralds having finished, it was announced that the joint sub-committee would take up the negotiations in secret. Six representatives of the miners and six of the operators are on this committee. Five of the six miners, including Mr. Lewis, took part in similar negotiations two years ago. It happens, however, that all but one of the operators' representatives are new to this work. After one brief session, the negotiating committee adjourned until four days later.

Meanwhile, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Warriner carried on their debate for the benefit of the public. Mr. Lewis attacked the figures of Mr. Warriner as to the earnings of miners, said that the U. S. Coal Commission had found that, of 46,000 "outside day men" employed at the mines, almost 44,000 received less than $2,000 a year, and the few who received $2,000 or more had to work up to 470 days a year (figuring overtime).*

Mr. Warriner, countering the miners' assertion that the operators wish to force a temporary strike in order to sell their coal stocks at high price, said:

"The operators wish to have it clearly understood that they are opposed to a suspension under any circumstances. Because the parties in any dispute cannot agree by a given date is no reason why they should go to war. In this belief, we are pressing the proposal that, if our respective committees are unable to agree upon any issues, such issues shall be referred to impartial arbitration, upon the understanding that production shall be continued at the present wage scale until the arbitrators render an award."/-

* No direct contradicting of Mr. Warriner's figures. Mr. Lewis did not contradict the latter's figure of $2,500 a year for contract miners; and Mr. Warriner's average figure of $2,000 was not for outside day men, but for all miners, including the higher paid contract miners. Each merely gave those figures appearing most favorable to his side.

/- By coupling "continuous production" to arbitration, the operators practically insured the rejection of their proposal since the miners had announced in advance their refusal to arbitrate.